Brexit

Anybody following this? Anybody care?

Anybody following this? Anybody care?

Its fascinating...I didn't think it would happen. I don't know if I agree or not, but I think Chuck Todd summed it up well, the angry middle class isn't just limited to the United States (Trump, Bernie) this is a phenomenon across western democracies.

Working class, middle class are generally tired of paying for everyone else. Benefits and cuts in public and private sectors but then you got to pay benefits to non citizens or folks who just sit on their ass. Rich get richer too. The media will use the emotional, impulse words like racist, xenophobia, anti-this and that, but that explains nothing. This goes way, way beyond these simple, blanket terms that are lightly tossed these days.

Its fascinating...I didn't think it would happen. I don't know if I agree or not, but I think Chuck Todd summed it up well, the angry middle class isn't just limited to the United States (Trump, Bernie) this is a phenomenon across western democracies.

Working class, middle class are generally tired of paying for everyone else. Benefits and cuts in public and private sectors but then you got to pay benefits to non citizens or folks who just sit on their ass. Rich get richer too. The media will use the emotional, impulse words like racist, xenophobia, anti-this and that, but that explains nothing. This goes way, way beyond these simple, blanket terms that are lightly tossed these days.

Yes, been watching it unfold.....
And, it's about time...
How's that go...Taxation without representation? Nice
AND, is it not the media's job to lie to us?

Its fascinating...I didn't think it would happen. I don't know if I agree or not, but I think Chuck Todd summed it up well, the angry middle class isn't just limited to the United States (Trump, Bernie) this is a phenomenon across western democracies.

Working class, middle class are generally tired of paying for everyone else. Benefits and cuts in public and private sectors but then you got to pay benefits to non citizens or folks who just sit on their ass. Rich get richer too. The media will use the emotional, impulse words like racist, xenophobia, anti-this and that, but that explains nothing. This goes way, way beyond these simple, blanket terms that are lightly tossed these days.

Most of the economic concern, I think, comes from the fact that the UK now has to renegotiate numerous trade agreements that may or may not be similar to the those they had under the EU. Because the old trade agreements were known entities, investors could generally understand the risks / benefits. Now, no one is quite sure how the new trade agreements will affect profits across national borders. Ultimately, I think it will be a benefit to the UK middle class, but, in the short term, likely to create a lot of financial upheaval throughout the global economy given London banking's prominence.

As to the bolded part, I think you hit the nail on the head. So much of the rhetoric today coming from the left is meant to stifle dissent - "Agree with us or you're a stupid, chauvinistic, racist." The right's rhetoric, on the other hand, isn't so much meant to stifle dissent as to say they just don't care about it. -"Murica! - love it, or leave it." It's a subtle distinction, but important ... just look at the UK. It's funny that, as is happening here through Clinton, the traditional left is joined forces with the London Banker interests to push to remain in the EU.

Vote Libertarian. lol

Its a lot of uncertainty going forward. But if any country could do it outside of Germany, its the UK in regards to leaving the EU.

I don't understand the need for broad changes across the board...why couldn't the UK just negotiate with the EU about needed changes and adjustments within the policies of the EU and charter? Failure of leadership by Cameron imo.

Compare it to our immigration policies....does anybody really think it makes sense to round up every illegal immigrant and ship them immediately out the country? No, do people really believe this could ever happen? No. Well Brexit is like a broad swath policy where lets say this would happen. Its not sensible.

This is a reminder that while globalization makes the world smaller and economies stronger, that manifests itself in the form of GDP growth that mostly accrues to fortune 500 businesses and thus fortune 500 shareholders, not to middle class citizens. While at the micro level, the individual doesn't feel that their situation is improving; they see tougher competition for jobs thanks to an influx of immigrants, because their jobs are local, not global.

It's inappropriate to classify those with a xenophobic mindset as racists - some are, but most are just fearful for their own job prospects. From that standpoint I can understand wanting a more protectionist strategy. Those of us who are highly qualified and secure in our jobs aren't threatened by immigration and the impact of global economies. But not everyone is in that boat, and if you've got an economy that increasingly relies on automation and outsources key functions traditionally performed by the middle class (manufacturing, call centers, etc.), it's no wonder you reach a tipping point where the frustrated middle class's votes exceed those of others.

I would have voted remain, but I completely understand the thinking for leaving. Globalization is not good for everybody.

It's huge blow to the trend to globalization - which may not necessarily be a bad thing. I have always been a "free market / free trade" guy, but that only really works when all the partners buy in and I am not sure some of our trading partners do.

Part of me thinks the world is in one of those important transition periods. The US economic hegemony is being seriously challenged by China's growth. While militarily we may be unchallenged, our military really only makes sense if it is protecting our economic interests in Europe and the Pacific. Alter the economic balance significantly and our militarily becomes much less relevant as a policy tool. [Country A says "No thanks. Please close your bases and go home. Our new trading partner doesn't want your aircraft carrier task force clogging up our harbor." I just don't see us ever forcing, through military might, a country to open their markets to us.]

The last world war / conflagration ended approximately 70 years ago. The next generation will have likely have no familial links to relate first hand the real life horrors of total war. It will become simply pictures on a screen and something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I don't think its a coincidence that, prior to WWI, the last major European war was 100 years prior (Napoleonic) and that occurred about 75 years after the prior major European war (the Seven Years War - of which our French and Indian war was a side theater of operations) and then about 80 years before that was the Hundred Years War was wrapping up. It takes a few generations to forget the privation, misery, loss, and sacrifice that warfare on a massive scale creates / causes. As a global society, we are entering that time frame.

This is a reminder that while globalization makes the world smaller and economies stronger, that manifests itself in the form of GDP growth that mostly accrues to fortune 500 businesses and thus fortune 500 shareholders, not to middle class citizens. While at the micro level, the individual doesn't feel that their situation is improving; they see tougher competition for jobs thanks to an influx of immigrants, because their jobs are local, not global.

It's inappropriate to classify those with a xenophobic mindset as racists - some are, but most are just fearful for their own job prospects. From that standpoint I can understand wanting a more protectionist strategy. Those of us who are highly qualified and secure in our jobs aren't threatened by immigration and the impact of global economies. But not everyone is in that boat, and if you've got an economy that increasingly relies on automation and outsources key functions traditionally performed by the middle class (manufacturing, call centers, etc.), it's no wonder you reach a tipping point where the frustrated middle class's votes exceed those of others.

I would have voted remain, but I completely understand the thinking for leaving. Globalization is not good for everybody.

Good point...Globalization isn't good for everybody. I think the emergence of the talk about "class", the dirty five letter word, is encouraging.

This is a reminder that while globalization makes the world smaller and economies stronger, that manifests itself in the form of GDP growth that mostly accrues to fortune 500 businesses and thus fortune 500 shareholders, not to middle class citizens. While at the micro level, the individual doesn't feel that their situation is improving; they see tougher competition for jobs thanks to an influx of immigrants, because their jobs are local, not global.

It's inappropriate to classify those with a xenophobic mindset as racists - some are, but most are just fearful for their own job prospects. From that standpoint I can understand wanting a more protectionist strategy. Those of us who are highly qualified and secure in our jobs aren't threatened by immigration and the impact of global economies. But not everyone is in that boat, and if you've got an economy that increasingly relies on automation and outsources key functions traditionally performed by the middle class (manufacturing, call centers, etc.), it's no wonder you reach a tipping point where the frustrated middle class's votes exceed those of others.

I would have voted remain, but I completely understand the thinking for leaving. Globalization is not good for everybody.

Again, I think this is right on point. Globalization requires a level of regulation that creates a situation where only large companies can absorb the costs and remain competitive. In my personal experience from the regulatory side, the larger the company, the less they fought the regulation - it was cost they could offset in other ways. In fact, the regulation was helpful in driving out smaller competitors who could not absorb the government imposed "cost of doing business."

It's huge blow to the trend to globalization - which may not necessarily be a bad thing. I have always been a "free market / free trade" guy, but that only really works when all the partners buy in and I am not sure some of our trading partners do.

Part of me thinks the world is in one of those important transition periods. The US economic hegemony is being seriously challenged by China's growth. While militarily we may be unchallenged, our military really only makes sense if it is protecting our economic interests in Europe and the Pacific. Alter the economic balance significantly and our militarily becomes much less relevant as a policy tool. [Country A says "No thanks. Please close your bases and go home. Our new trading partner doesn't want your aircraft carrier task force clogging up our harbor." I just don't see us ever forcing, through military might, a country to open their markets to us.]

The last world war / conflagration ended approximately 70 years ago. The next generation will have likely have no familial links to relate first hand the real life horrors of total war. It will become simply pictures on a screen and something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I don't think its a coincidence that, prior to WWI, the last major European war was 100 years prior (Napoleonic) and that occurred about 75 years after the prior major European war (the Seven Years War - of which our French and Indian war was a side theater of operations) and then about 80 years before that was the Hundred Years War was wrapping up. It takes a few generations to forget the privation, misery, loss, and sacrifice that warfare on a massive scale creates / causes. As a global society, we are entering that time frame.

Great points. But this time the key difference is the world powers have nukes that keep everybody else in check. Result: guerrilla terrorism vs special forces infiltration.